A Multi-Core Solver for Parity Games

We describe a parallel algorithm for solving parity games,\ud with applications in, e.g., modal mu-calculus model\ud checking with arbitrary alternations, and (branching) bisimulation\ud checking. The algorithm is based on Jurdzinski's Small Progress\ud Measures. Actually, this is a class of algorithms, depending on\ud a selection heuristics.\ud \ud Our algorithm operates lock-free, and mostly wait-free (except for\ud infrequent termination detection), and thus allows maximum\ud parallelism. Additionally, we conserve memory by avoiding storage\ud of predecessor edges for the parity graph through strictly\ud forward-looking heuristics.\ud \ud We evaluate our multi-core implementation's behaviour on parity games\ud obtained from mu-calculus model checking problems for a set of\ud communication protocols, randomly generated problem instances, and\ud parametric problem instances from the literature.\ud \u

Breaking Instance-Independent Symmetries In Exact Graph Coloring

Code optimization and high level synthesis can be posed as constraint satisfaction and optimization problems, such as graph coloring used in register allocation. Graph coloring is also used to model more traditional CSPs relevant to AI, such as planning, time-tabling and scheduling. Provably optimal solutions may be desirable for commercial and defense applications. Additionally, for applications such as register allocation and code optimization, naturally-occurring instances of graph coloring are often small and can be solved optimally. A recent wave of improvements in algorithms for Boolean satisfiability (SAT) and 0-1 Integer Linear Programming (ILP) suggests generic problem-reduction methods, rather than problem-specific heuristics, because (1) heuristics may be upset by new constraints, (2) heuristics tend to ignore structure, and (3) many relevant problems are provably inapproximable. Problem reductions often lead to highly symmetric SAT instances, and symmetries are known to slow down SAT solvers. In this work, we compare several avenues for symmetry breaking, in particular when certain kinds of symmetry are present in all generated instances. Our focus on reducing CSPs to SAT allows us to leverage recent dramatic improvement in SAT solvers and automatically benefit from future progress. We can use a variety of black-box SAT solvers without modifying their source code because our symmetry-breaking techniques are static, i.e., we detect symmetries and add symmetry breaking predicates (SBPs) during pre-processing. An important result of our work is that among the types of instance-independent SBPs we studied and their combinations, the simplest and least complete constructions are the most effective. Our experiments also clearly indicate that instance-independent symmetries should mostly be processed together with instance-specific symmetries rather than at the specification level, contrary to what has been suggested in the literature

Sparse Positional Strategies for Safety Games

We consider the problem of obtaining sparse positional strategies for safety games. Such games are a commonly used model in many formal methods, as they make the interaction of a system with its environment explicit. Often, a winning strategy for one of the players is used as a certificate or as an artefact for further processing in the application. Small such certificates, i.e., strategies that can be written down very compactly, are typically preferred. For safety games, we only need to consider positional strategies. These map game positions of a player onto a move that is to be taken by the player whenever the play enters that position. For representing positional strategies compactly, a common goal is to minimize the number of positions for which a winning player's move needs to be defined such that the game is still won by the same player, without visiting a position with an undefined next move. We call winning strategies in which the next move is defined for few of the player's positions sparse. Unfortunately, even roughly approximating the density of the sparsest strategy for a safety game has been shown to be NP-hard. Thus, to obtain sparse strategies in practice, one either has to apply some heuristics, or use some exhaustive search technique, like ILP (integer linear programming) solving. In this paper, we perform a comparative study of currently available methods to obtain sparse winning strategies for the safety player in safety games. We consider techniques from common knowledge, such as using ILP or SAT (satisfiability) solving, and a novel technique based on iterative linear programming. The results of this paper tell us if current techniques are already scalable enough for practical use.Comment: In Proceedings SYNT 2012, arXiv:1207.055

Conformant Planning as a Case Study of Incremental QBF Solving

We consider planning with uncertainty in the initial state as a case study of incremental quantified Boolean formula (QBF) solving. We report on experiments with a workflow to incrementally encode a planning instance into a sequence of QBFs. To solve this sequence of incrementally constructed QBFs, we use our general-purpose incremental QBF solver DepQBF. Since the generated QBFs have many clauses and variables in common, our approach avoids redundancy both in the encoding phase and in the solving phase. Experimental results show that incremental QBF solving outperforms non-incremental QBF solving. Our results are the first empirical study of incremental QBF solving in the context of planning and motivate its use in other application domains.Comment: added reference to extended journal article; revision (camera-ready, to appear in the proceedings of AISC 2014, volume 8884 of LNAI, Springer

Reinforcement Learning: A Survey

This paper surveys the field of reinforcement learning from a computer-science perspective. It is written to be accessible to researchers familiar with machine learning. Both the historical basis of the field and a broad selection of current work are summarized. Reinforcement learning is the problem faced by an agent that learns behavior through trial-and-error interactions with a dynamic environment. The work described here has a resemblance to work in psychology, but differs considerably in the details and in the use of the word ``reinforcement.'' The paper discusses central issues of reinforcement learning, including trading off exploration and exploitation, establishing the foundations of the field via Markov decision theory, learning from delayed reinforcement, constructing empirical models to accelerate learning, making use of generalization and hierarchy, and coping with hidden state. It concludes with a survey of some implemented systems and an assessment of the practical utility of current methods for reinforcement learning.Comment: See http://www.jair.org/ for any accompanying file